Utah Judge Michael Kwan was suspended for six months without pay after making comments critical of President Donald Trump, in which he attacked the president for his “inability to govern.” Kwan also criticized Trump’s “political incompetence.”

Utah State Supreme Court Justice John A. Pearce ruled that Kwan’s posts from Facebook and LinkedIn violated the judicial code of conducted and hurt “the reputation of our entire judiciary.”

“Judge Kwan’s behavior denigrates his reputation as an impartial, independent, dignified, and courteous jurist who takes no advantage of the office in which he serves,” he continued.

Kwan, commenting on Trump’s election, posted the following on Inauguration Day: “Welcome to governing. Will you dig your heels in and spend the next four years undermining our country’s reputation and standing in the world? . . . Will you continue to demonstrate your inability to govern and political incompetence?”

A month later, he wrote: “Welcome to the beginning of the fascist takeover. . . We need to be diligent in questioning Congressional Republicans if they are going to be the American Reichstag and refuse to stand up for the Constitution.”

Kwan’s comments in court also came back to bite him. In an exchange with a defendant in Jan. 2017, the defendant said he would be able to pay the fine Kwan imposed when he got his tax return back. When Kwan asked the man if he would get any money back, the defendant said “I pray and cross my fingers.” Kwan then said this:

OK. Prayer might be the answer. ‘Cause [Trump] just signed an order to start building the wall and he has no money to do that, and so if you think you are going to get taxes back this year, uh-yeah, maybe, maybe not. But don’t worry, there is a tax cut for the wealthy so if you make over $500,000 you’re getting a tax cut. You’re right there, right? Pretty close? All right, so do you have a plan? Other than just get the tax cut and pay it off?

Kwan claimed that he intended this to be a joke, but Justice Pearce wasn’t buying it:

It is an immutable and universal rule that judges are not as funny as they think they are. If someone laughs at a judge’s joke, there is a decent chance that the laughter was dictated by the courtroom’s power dynamic and not by a genuine belief that the joke was funny.

Kwan tried to argue that the suspension was an unlawful attempt to regulate his constitutionally protected speech, Pearce noted in his opinion. Kwan’s attorney, Greg Skordas, said his client is disappointed with the severity of the ruling, but accepted that he would receive some sort of punishment.

“He certainly regrets making those statements and is committed to not doing anything like that again,” Skordas said. Skordas also added that Kwan “allowed his political thoughts to get the better of him and the Supreme Court has reprimanded him for that and the reprimand was quite severe.”

Kwan has been a judge in the Salt Lake City suburb of Taylorsville since 1998. He was first appointed by city officials to a six-year term and after those six years, he was voted to the same position. He usually hears misdemeanors, violations of ordinances and small claims in his court.

The United States Supreme Court on Friday stayed rulings from two lower federal courts that had ordered Ohio and Michigan to redraw their state district voting maps in advance of the 2020 election due to partisan gerrymandering.

The decision granted the requests of Republican lawmakers in both states and allowed them to halt the process of redrawing their voting maps; the court required at least a majority vote from the justices to issue the stays on the lower court’s decisions.

In the Michigan case, the District Court of the Eastern District of Michigan ruled in April that 34 of the state’s voting districts were unconstitutional because they were gerrymandered to such a degree that it violated voters’ First Amendment rights and the Constitution’s Equal Protection clause.

Similarly, a federal court in Ohio, a swing-state where the overall vote tends to be very closely split between Democrats and Republicans, found that the state’s voting map was intentionally drawn to dilute the political power of the state’s Democratic voters. The state’s voting maps went into effect in 2012 and–despite the general population’s vote being close to a 50-50 split–have consistently yielded a 3:1 delegation split in favor of Republicans.

The unsigned order, which was expected by many court-watchers, did not include a dissent from any of the justices. It happens as the Supreme Court is poised to issue rulings on two separate partisan gerrymandering cases pertaining to the voting maps in North Carolina and Maryland.

In North Carolina, legislators were accused of intentionally drawing congressional maps to favor Republican candidates. Meanwhile in Maryland, Democratic lawmakers faced analogous claims regarding one of the state’s U.S. House districts.

The pending gerrymandering ruling is expected to be issued by the court in the coming weeks and will likely set a precedent for deciding gerrymandering cases on a broader scale.

Under normal circumstances, electoral districts are redrawn every 10 years to account for population changes reflected in the U.S. Census. The Supreme Court has never previously ruled a state’s voting map to be unconstitutional due to gerrymandering.

Prosecutors in Barron County, Wisconsin got their way on Friday. Jake Thomas Patterson was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for kidnapping teenager Jayme Closs, and murdering her parents Denise and James Closs on Oct. 15, 2018. To achieve that result, Barron County District Attorney Brian Wright detailed how the defendant committed the crime and ended up getting caught.

Most details were previously known from the criminal complaint released after the Patterson arrest, but the DA did elaborate on the moment where the defendant realized it was all over.

Patterson imprisoned Jayme Closs at his home in Douglas County. He forced her under his bed for hours at a time, and also threatened her to discourage any escape attempts.

This didn’t work.

The 13-year-old finally escaped on Jan. 10. According to authorities, the defendant told her he was going to be away for five to six hours and forced the victim to hide under his bed. While he was gone, Closs cast aside the bins and weights blocking her in, took a pair of Patterson’s shoes, and found help with a local neighbor.

Patterson said that if he returned home a half-hour sooner, he could’ve stopped Closs from running away, according to the DA.

“The defendant arrived at his house that afternoon, and in his words, quote, ‘knew he was fucked,’ unquote, when Jayme wasn’t under the bed,” said Wright.

Defense lawyers Charles Glynn and Richard Jones attempted to at least get their client the chance for parole, so he could have access to treatment while in lock-up.

Glynn argued that the author of the pre-sentence investigation report–which recommended life in prison without the possibility of release–got carried away with emotion and made an unqualified analysis of Patterson’s mental health.

The defense consulted their own mental expert, who determined the defendant had overreacted to loneliness and stress. Jones said that the only reason they didn’t take the case to trial was because their client didn’t allow them to. Patterson insisted on pleading guilty, Jones said. Accordingly, the lawyers tried to present this as a huge mitigating factor. The defendant said in court that he would do anything to bring back Denise and James Closs.

Judge James C. Babler didn’t accept this argument.

The judge called Patterson the “embodiment of evil,” and read aloud a statement in which the defendant declared having fantasies of kidnapping girls and killing their families. The defense often shook his head throughout the hearing. He even interrupted the judge.

When Patterson interrupted the judge, he was saying “why don’t you read the rest of the letter. I wrote a lot more than that and you’re ignoring it” #JaymeCloss

Closs’s family delivered victim impact statements calling for Patterson to spend the rest of his life in prison. Wright read a letter on Closs’s behalf, in which she said that the defendant can’t stop her from being happy and moving forward with her life.

[Image via Press Pool]

]]>https://lawandcrime.com/live-trials/live-trials-current/jake-patterson/this-is-when-kidnapper-murderer-jake-patterson-knew-he-was-fed/feed/0Daily Debrief May 24th, 2019https://lawandcrime.com/podcasts/daily-debrief-may-24th-2019/
https://lawandcrime.com/podcasts/daily-debrief-may-24th-2019/#respondFri, 24 May 2019 21:48:17 +0000https://lawandcrime.com/?p=143988In Wisconsin, the words of a girl held captive for 88 days ring in a courtroom as prosecutors ask for life without parole for her abductor.

Also,in South Carolina, a man who killed his five kids claims insanity. Does an old brain injury give him an excuse?

Plus, in California, a former NFL player faces accusations of sex crimes. We break down the testimony of three accusers.

Three people have been charged with murder in Dallas, Texas for their alleged involvement in enticing a man with sex—in order to rob him at gunpoint. Authorities say this led to a shooting that left one man dead and other critically wounded.

Sydnee Whitaker, 18, met the murder victim Adrian Wells, 21, the day before the shooting, according to the police affidavit. The affidavit stated that Whitaker texted Wells the next day, saying she wanted to see him to “perform a sexual act.”

In the arrest warrant for Whitaker, police said that three armed robbers lured Wells outside of his apartment. After that, they allegedly forced him inside the apartment and demanded cash. The shooting occurred after the robbers discovered that there were two other individuals in the apartment, police said. Wells was killed and a 45-year-old man was critically wounded.

A witness reportedly told police that after he heard gunshots, he saw a woman with a facial tattoo running from the area of Wells’ apartment. He asked the woman if she was okay. The witness said that the woman responded by saying “no,” and left. Two days after the shooting, Whitaker reportedly called the police and told them she had information about Wells’s death. Authorities said she no-showed at police HQ after agreeing to sit down for an interview.

One of Whitaker’s family members apparently contacted investigators. The individual said Whitaker drove three men to Wells’s apartment to buy marijuana, according to the affidavit. Whitaker told this person that she was in the car when the shots rang out.

Whitaker, along with Tyrone Williams, 22, and Jaroy Rogers, 21, were charged with murder for their alleged involvement in the shooting. Rogers also faces charges of theft, engaging in organized crime and drug possession.

All three are being held at a Dallas County jail. Williams’s and Whitaker’s bails have been set at $500,000, while Rogers’s bail is set at $607,500.

A federal judge blocked Mississippi abortion bill S.B. 2116 on Friday, and began his order by saying “here we go again.”

U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves garnered attention in recent months while accepting the Thomas Jefferson Foundation Medal in Law at the University of Virginia School of Law. During that speech, Reeves cited President Donald Trump‘s tweets and comments to illustrate his belief that the country is at risk as it was during the days of segregation and the KKK.

The Mississippi bill, which was set to go into effect in July, would have prohibited abortions after the detection of a fetal heartbeat (as early as six weeks of pregnancy).

As we alluded to in the opening, the first words of Reeves’ order were “Here we go again.”

“The parties have been here before. Last spring, plaintiffs successfully challenged Mississippi’s ban on abortion after 15 weeks. The Court ruled that the law was unconstitutional and permanently enjoined its enforcement,” Reeves said. “The State responded by passing an even more restrictive bill, S.B. 2116.”

“S.B. 2116 threatens immediate harm to women’s rights, especially considering most women do not seek abortion services until after 6 weeks,” Reeves continued. “Allowing the law to take effect would force the clinic to stop providing most abortion care.”

Reeves said that to allow this bill to go into effect would be to allow an affront to women’s “personal dignity and autonomy.”

“[B]anning abortions after the detection of a fetal heartbeat, S.B. 2116 prevents a woman’s free choice, which is central to personal dignity and autonomy,” Reeves concluded. “This injury outweighs any interest the State might have in banning abortions after the detection of a fetal heartbeat.”

“Any delay in the enforcement of S.B. 2116 will serve the public interest by protecting this established right and the rule of law.” he added, granting a preliminary injunction to block the enforcement of the bill.

The real estate firm owned by Jared Kushner’s family received approximately $800 million in federally-backed funding to purchase $1.1 billion Mid-Atlantic apartment portfolio in a deal that closed Thursday. Berkadia Commercial Mortgage, the commercial lending company owned by Warren Buffet, provided Kushner Companies with the 10-year $800 million debt package backed by government-owned Freddie Mac, according to a report from Bloomberg.

Kushner Companies’ acquisition of the portfolio, which consists of around 6,000 apartment rental units in the Maryland-D.C. area, marks the company’s largest asset purchase since it infamously acquired 666 Fifth Avenue in 2007 for a then-record price of $1.8 billion. The Kushner family business unloaded the troubled asset’s 99-year lease last year to Brookfield Asset Management.

The family owned company is currently operated by Charles Kushner, Jared Kushner’s sister Nicole Kushner Meyer, and Laurent Morali. Before divesting from the company to assume a position as one of President Donald Trump’s senior advisors, Jared Kushner was the company’s chief executive officer. Kushner is married to the president’s daughter, Ivanka Trump.

When Bloomberg first reported on the possible deal back in February, Peter Mirijanian, a spokesman for Jared Kushner’s attorney Abbe Lowell, reiterated that Kushner has no involvement with the Kushner Companies’ management or business decisions.

“As part of an ethics agreement he has and has followed, Mr. Kushner has had no role in the Kushner Companies or its activities since joining the government over two years ago,” Mirijanian wrote in a February email to Bloomberg, adding that, “He is walled off from any business or investment decisions and has no idea or knowledge of these activities.”

As the deal is backed by federal funds and increases the government’s down-side exposure relating to Kushner’s family business, the move that has sparked concerns from ethics experts, who have noted that the “ethics agreement” used by Mirijanian to justify Kushner’s disinterest in the business has not been publicly disclosed.

The former director of the U.S. Office of Government Ethics Walter Shaub, for one, took to Twitter Friday to express his displeasure with the government’s lack of transparency.

“What’s really infuriating is that Kushner’s lawyer defends him by referring to an ethics agreement the public has not seen. The ethics agreements of all Senate-confirmed appointees are online. Why are the ethics agreement of White House appointees secret?” Shaub said.

This is not the first time Kushner’s relationship with the Kushner Companies has drawn the ire of ethics watchdogs. In addition to his failing to disclose multiple financial ties in his initial government disclosures, Kushner’s sister, Nicole Kushner Meyer, invoked Kushner by name while seeking investment from international investors for the company’s Jersey City development in 2017.

[Image via SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images]

]]>https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/he-is-walled-off-kushner-companies-800m-federally-backed-deal-raises-ethical-questions/feed/0Jake Patterson Sentenced to Life in Prison for Kidnapping Jayme Closs, Murdering Her Parentshttps://lawandcrime.com/live-trials/live-trials-current/jake-patterson/jake-patterson-sentenced/
https://lawandcrime.com/live-trials/live-trials-current/jake-patterson/jake-patterson-sentenced/#respondFri, 24 May 2019 20:27:48 +0000https://lawandcrime.com/?p=143885

Jake Thomas Patterson, 21, was sentenced Friday to life in prison without the possibility of release for the abduction of Jayme Closs, and murders of her parents Denise and James Closs.

The defendant pleaded guilty in March to kidnapping and two counts of intentional homicide with no plea agreement in place, so he faced the maximum possible sentence of life in prison. At the time, his defense said in court that they tried to do their due diligence, and planned on attempting to suppress his confession, but their client insisted on this outcome.

Attorneys Charlie Glynn and Richard Jones maintained this theme on Friday. They said that Patterson wanted to plead guilty immediately. The lawyers attempted to position this as a major mitigating factor. The only reason they didn’t take this case to trial is because the defendant wouldn’t allow them to, Jones said. The defendant said in court that he would do anything to bring Denise and James Closs back.

Barron County District Attorney Brian Wright asked for life in prison without the possibility of release. It was argued that Patterson would look for Jayme Closs if he were released from prison. (The defendant shook his head periodically during the hearing, and especially so during this portion.) The only mitigating factor was the decision to plead guilty, but that didn’t change what Patterson did, the state said.

In a statement read on her behalf, Closs said that the defendant couldn’t stop her from being happy and moving forward. Judge James C. Babler called Patterson the “embodiment of evil.”

Investigators in Barron County said that Patterson admitted to executing this abduction and murders. He claimed to first see Jayme Closs when she was stepping onto a school bus, and he decided would take her, according to the criminal complaint. The defendant detailed that he took pains to avoid leaving evidence. This included wiping down his shotgun and shells while wearing gloves to eliminate fingerprints or DNA; shaving his face and head to avoid leaving DNA or hair; and wearing gloves and a balaclava mask.

Patterson admitted shooting Denise and James Closs in the head, and forced their daughter into his cabin up north in Douglas County. He kept her imprisoned there for months, and threatened her to stop her from escaping. The defendant often made her stay for hours under his bed, and blocked her in with totes and weights.

Jayme Closs escaped January 10, deputies said. She told investigators that Patterson left his residence after telling her he was going to be gone for five to six hours, and he forced her again under his bed. This time, she didn’t stay. Closs said she pushed off the bins and weights, put on a pair of the defendant’s shoes, and found help with a woman who was walking a dog. Patterson was arrested soon after.

[Image of Closs via FBI Handout]

]]>https://lawandcrime.com/live-trials/live-trials-current/jake-patterson/jake-patterson-sentenced/feed/0‘I Value the God-Given Right to Life’: Man Who Threatened to Murder U.S. Senator for Criticizing Trump Pleads Guiltyhttps://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/pro-life-man-who-threatened-to-murder-senator-for-criticizing-trump-pleads-guilty/
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/pro-life-man-who-threatened-to-murder-senator-for-criticizing-trump-pleads-guilty/#respondFri, 24 May 2019 20:17:02 +0000https://lawandcrime.com/?p=143932

A 51-year-old Brooklyn man who threatened to murder a sitting U.S. Senator for their criticism of President Donald Trump pleaded guilty on Friday, meaning he now faces up to 10 years behind bars.

Michael Brogan, ostensibly a pro-life man, was accused of threatening to kill an unidentified U.S. Senator “in retaliation for the United States Senator’s criticism of [President Trump] and the Senator’s position concerning reproductive rights.”

Brogan left that unidentified Senator the following (expletive-filled) voicemail message:

You listen carefully. Stupid ass excuse. You call yourself a Senator, you’re a piece of shit. You are an absolute piece of shit, Senator. Senator, and I put that in quotation marks…you’re a fucking phony. You watch your ass cause I [unintelligible], I’m going to put a bullet in ya. When I’m in D.C. and you’re there, I got your fucking mark you stupid bitch. You and your constant lambasting of President Trump. Oh, and reproductive rights, reproductive rights. You know what? I’m cursing and I’m in sin because of people like you, ok? Cause I value the God given right to life. You are alive. You should thank our lord and savior Jesus Christ that you are alive. If I saw you, I’d snuff your stupid fucking ass. I’d put a fucking bullet in you. You watch your ass. If I see you on the streets, I’m gonna fucking light you up with fucking bullets.

U.S. Capitol Police Special Agent John R. Delegan previously noted that Brogan attended the annual March for Life in the nation’s capital. U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York Richard P. Donoghue on Friday said that such threats would not be tolerated, and would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

“Brogan threatened to assault and murder a sitting United States Senator to silence the Senator and interfere with the performance of the Senator’s official duties,” Donoghue said. “The Department of Justice stands ready to vigorously prosecute those who seek to subvert our constitutional system and intimidate elected officials through threats of violence.”

After Daniel Shannon‘s 97-year-old mother died, he allegedly buried her in the backyard so he could continue to collect her Social Security and Veterans Affairs benefits.

The Pinal County Sheriff’s Office put out a statement saying that Shannon, 66, of San Tan Valley, Arizona, was arrested on Wednesday for alleged fraud and improper disposal of a body. On April 5 someone called the sheriff’s office to report their concerns that no one had seen Leonie Shannon since Dec. 2018.

ICYMI: Daniel Shannon of San Tan Valley was arrested for improper disposal of his mother's body/fraud. @PinalCSO says Shannon buried his mom in the backyard because he wanted to keep collecting her Social Security/VA Benefits to help pay for the patent on his invention #12Newspic.twitter.com/LeNVnJhKbD

Daniel Shannon allegedly told police that his mother left home four days before Christmas and that it was not the first time she had disappeared. He told the police that he did not want to report his mother’s disappearance because “they just started getting her VA benefits and did not want to report her missing on the off chance that she returned home,” the sheriff’s office statement said. The statement continued:

During the course of the investigation, Shannon’s story kept changing. When detectives questioned Shannon today, Shannon admitted that his mother passed away on December 21st, 2018. Instead of reporting it, he decided to bury his mother in the backyard so he could continue to receive his mother’s Social Security and VA Benefits. Shannon told detectives that he needed to keep getting the benefits to help pay for the patent on his invention.

The sheriff’s office said the investigation is ongoing and that Shannon could face additional charges.

Rich Shannon said that everyone knew that his brother was taking advantage of their mother.

“When the detective called the first time he said ‘we are looking for your mom.’ I said, well did you check the freezer?'” he said. Shannon added that his brother has “gone through over half a million dollars of my dad’s money. There is no money left, that we know of.”

Shannon told ABC Denver7 that his mother, a World War II decoder and science teacher, deserved better. “The karma gods have come back,” Shannon said about his brother’s alleged stealing of their parents money. “Hopefully he will go to prison for a while.”

[Screengrab via ABC Denver7]

]]>https://lawandcrime.com/crazy/sheriff-arizona-man-buried-his-dead-97-year-old-mom-in-backyard-to-continue-collecting-her-benefits/feed/0Calls for Mueller’s Public Testimony Intensify After It’s Revealed That He Wants to Avoid ‘Political Spectacle’https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/calls-for-robert-muellers-public-testimony-intensify-after-its-revealed-that-he-wants-to-avoid-political-spectacle/
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/calls-for-robert-muellers-public-testimony-intensify-after-its-revealed-that-he-wants-to-avoid-political-spectacle/#respondFri, 24 May 2019 17:33:16 +0000https://lawandcrime.com/?p=143883

Demands for Special Counsel Robert Mueller to testify publicly before Congress have only increased after it was claimed that Mueller isn’t interested in participating in something he might consider a “political spectacle.”

In case you missed it, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said Thursday night that it is his understanding that Mueller “doesn’t want to participate in anything that he might regard as a political spectacle.” This is to say, Mueller doesn’t want a live hearing.

We already knew that Mueller and House Democrats were experiencing difficulties when it comes to agreeing on the parameters of possible testimony on Capitol Hill.

The Washington Post reported on Tuesday that Mueller wants his public testimony to only cover subjects that come from his publicly issued Russia report. Democrats, of course, want to question Mueller about whether he thinks Trump obstructed justice and to determine what the special counsel thought of Attorney General William Barr‘s handling of Mueller’s report. Last month, it was revealed that Mueller sent a letter to Barr outlining that he thought Barr’s letter summarizing the report could undermine the public’s confidence in the investigation.

As CNBC noted, Mueller is interested in making an opening statement in public. Nadler said, however, that even if Mueller were to testify in private that testimony would still go public.

I 100% agree with Preet. The whole point of the Special Counsel regulations is to provide public confidence in the administration of justice. I get that Mueller, when he turned in his Report, may have thought public testimony unnecessary, but Barr’s subsequent actions make it so. https://t.co/Dwg53hQbT7

It will be interesting to see how this dispute is resolved, and whether Mueller will budge on this position.

Some have argued that if Mueller is permitted to testify behind closed doors, a transcript would be about as widely read as the Mueller Report (which is to say, not widely read). Others have characterized Mueller’s resistance to testifying at a live hearing as a commentary of sorts on House Democrats’ behavior of late.

Chaiman Nadler says Mueller is reluctant to testify because “he doesn't want to participate in anything that he might regard as a political spectacle.” Why would the special counsel think the House Judiciary Committee has devolved into a stage for political spectacle? pic.twitter.com/BNtefSDpEC

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced a proposal that would lift an Obama-era rule that protected transgender people against discrimination and would remove abortion as an essential health benefit under the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) both took to Twitter to make their objections to this rule change known.

This president is more ruthless toward transgender Americans than he is to any actual adversary. His agenda is nothing but hate and hurt toward the most marginalized among us. What a disgrace. https://t.co/afWXfr00mb

For the second time this week the Trump administration is rolling back protections for transgender Americans. A new rule would allow doctors & insurers to reject transgender patients. They’re putting ideology ahead of civil rights and a vulnerable community at more risk for harm. https://t.co/CjLGXEpzgq

The Obama administration created the rule protecting transgender people in 2016 under the civil rights provision of the ACA. Section 1557 prohibits discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, age or disability in “any health program or activity” that gets federal funds. The rule also expanded “gender identity” to include an individual’s “internal sense of gender, which may be male, female, neither, or a combination of male and female, and which may be different from an individual’s sex assigned at birth.”

The new proposal adds that the Affordable Care Act “shall be construed to require qualified health plans to cover abortions as an essential health benefit.” It also states:

The Department believes that its enforcement of Title IX, and its enforcement of Section 1557 (to the extent it incorporates Title IX), must be constrained by the statutory contours of Title IX, which include explicit abortion and religious exemptions and which should be set forth more clearly than in the Final Rule.

“The Department proposes to repeal the novel definition of ‘sex'” the proposal states. “The Department further believes this proposed rule avoids different interpretations of the same statute by multiple agencies, and promotes consistent expectations and enforcement.” (See the full rule proposal below.)

The new rule proposes that “the novel definition of ‘sex'” should not include this the Obama administration’s definition of gender identity. “The Department further believes this proposed rule avoids different interpretations of the same statute by multiple agencies, and promotes consistent expectations and enforcement,” the proposal said. It later adds:

Section 1557 Regulation’s gender identity provisions remain, public confusion persists. To ensure that its civil rights regulations are consistent with the views of the Department of Justice, other Federal agencies, and internally, the Department proposes to repeal the definition of “on the basis of sex” that had been adopted in its Section 1557 Final Rule.

This rule change is sure to bring legal challenges. Diana Flynn, legal litigation director at Lambda Legal said in a statement that the “Trump-Pence administration’s targeting of the LGBT community is unmistakable and unconscionable. HHS should be in the business of ensuring that people get the health care they need, not providing excuses for providers and insurers to turn people away.” She adds, “no matter how ardently Trump administration officials may want to gut the civil rights protections in our federal laws, only Congress and the courts have that power. This latest assault on our rights will not go unchallenged.”

The R.G.& G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC case focuses on whether an employer can discriminate against an employee because they are transgender. The Supreme Court will look at “whether Title VII prohibits discrimination against transgender people based on (1) their status as transgender or (2) sex stereotyping under Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U. S. 228 (1989).” A U.S. District Court judge ruled that the funeral home did not violate Title VII when it fired its director after she told them she was going to transition her gender and identify as male. But the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision in March 2018. The Funeral Home argues that they are protected from firing the director on religious freedom grounds.

Jake Thomas Patterson is scheduled for a sentencing hearing Friday in Barron County, Wisconsin in the kidnapping of teenager Jayme Closs, and murder of her parents Denise and James Closs. He pleaded guilty in March. Court is set to begin at 2:30 p.m. ET / 1:30 p.m. ET.

The judge noted at the plea hearing that there was no sentencing agreement. In other words, Patterson still faces the possible maximum penalty of life in prison. In the lead up to that development, Patterson reportedly made clear that he wanted to plead guilty from the get-go. This was confirmed. His attorneys said in court that he wanted to admit guilt from the beginning. They said they worked on doing their due diligence in his case–for example, they planned on attempting to suppress his confession–but he insisted on this outcome, they said.

Prosecutors say he kidnapped Jayme Closs, and fatally shot her parents at their home last October. The crime went unsolved for months, with no apparent sign of the girl. The defendant kept her imprisoned at his Douglas County cabin, until she escaped in January. Investigators said he quickly admitted to the crime.

Ironically, he ended up reportedly refusing to cooperate with the pre-sentencing investigation, based on the advice of his counsel.

Authorities said there’s no indication that the Closs family knew Patterson before the incident. Indeed, the defendant said he first saw her by happenstance, according to the arrest affidavit. He claimed that he was driving behind a school bus, and saw her step into that vehicle. From then on, he decided that he was going to kidnap her.

Planned Parenthood Southeast and Alabama’s ACLU chapter filed a lawsuit on Friday after the state’s Republican Gov. Kay Ivey (R) signed into a law an abortion ban that–if it were to go into effect–could punish doctors with 99 years in prison.

The Alabama bill includes no rape or incest exceptions, but it includes an exception for when the life of the mother is in danger. It does not threaten to incarcerate women who receive abortions, only doctors who provide them.

Plaintiffs are asking the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama Northern Division to declare HB 314 unconstitutional “under more than four decades of binding Supreme Court precedent” and to issue an injunction to prevent it from going into effect.

To bolster their claim, they cited statements from Republicans admitting that HB 314 was “unconstitutional.”

Planned Parenthood Southeast’s President and CEO Staci Fox referenced Alabama’s state motto in a Friday statement about the lawsuit.

“Alabama’s state motto is audemus jura nostra defendere, which means ‘we dare defend our rights.’ That’s exactly what we’re doing here today,” Fox said. “Abortion has been safe and legal in this country for more than 45 years and we aim to keep it that way. We are protecting the rights of our patients. We are defending the work of the brave folks who came before us. And we are fighting to take this country forward, not backwards.”

]]>https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/forward-not-backwards-aclu-planned-parenthood-sue-over-alabamas-unconstitutional-abortion-ban/feed/0After 70-Year-Old Woman Found Dead, Police Say She Was Sexually Assaulted with an Umbrellahttps://lawandcrime.com/crazy/after-70-year-old-woman-found-dead-police-say-she-was-sexually-assaulted-with-an-umbrella/
https://lawandcrime.com/crazy/after-70-year-old-woman-found-dead-police-say-she-was-sexually-assaulted-with-an-umbrella/#respondFri, 24 May 2019 15:23:44 +0000https://lawandcrime.com/?p=143848

A New Jersey woman has been charged with the murder and sexual assault of an elderly woman. Caroline Beckert, 40, allegedly used an umbrella to sexually assault Joann Cullinan. Beckert is being charged with first-degree murder, aggravated sexual assault in the first-degree and possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose.

Cullinan, 70, was found dead in her apartment in Old Bridge, New Jersey on Thursday. The police were notified that someone was killed when Beckert called them and said she killed someone, according to an affidavit obtained by NJ.com. Cullinan was pronounced dead at the scene.

Beckert and Cullinan were reportedly “acquaintances.” Beckert used a knife and a drawer to kill the woman, police say. Police discovered a bloody umbrella and clothing, and a knife at the scene.

The Middlesex County Medical Examiner’s Office is determining the exact cause of death. The results of an autopsy are pending. Beckert is being held in the Middlesex County Adult Corrections Center ahead of her Friday court appearance in the New Brunswick Superior Court.

[Screengrab via CBS 2 News]

]]>https://lawandcrime.com/crazy/after-70-year-old-woman-found-dead-police-say-she-was-sexually-assaulted-with-an-umbrella/feed/0Legal Team for Accused War Criminal Just Happens to Include a Trump Lawyerhttps://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/legal-team-for-accused-war-criminal-just-happens-to-include-a-trump-lawyer/
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/legal-team-for-accused-war-criminal-just-happens-to-include-a-trump-lawyer/#respondFri, 24 May 2019 14:53:04 +0000https://lawandcrime.com/?p=143846

The New York Times recently reported that President Donald Trump is considering issuing pardons to several servicemen accused of war crimes. Now it appears that at least one of those servicemen hired an attorney that represents Trump himself.

Former special operations chief Navy SEAL Edward Gallagher is set for trial on May 28; he’s charged with shooting civilians, including a school-age girl, and knifing to death a captured ISIS fighter receiving medical treatment in Iraq in 2017. Gallagher was ultimately reported by his own platoon, and faces 12 counts including murder, attempted murder, and obstruction of justice for allegedly attempting to intimidate troops reporting his crimes. He faces life in prison for his crimes.

Gallagher, though, appears to have a direct line to the president. Marc Mukasey, an attorney with the Trump Administration who recently made headlines for his help with Donald Trump’s Deutsche Bank-related interests, also represents Gallagher.

Mukasey is Rudy Giuliani’s former law partner, and the son of President George W. Bush’s attorney general, Michael Mukasey.

Mukasey dismissed questions about any conflict of interest in representing both Trump (who is the country’s chief law enforcement officer and has the power to pardon Gallagher) and Gallagher (currently being prosecuted by the federal government). “I’m a trial lawyer,” Mukasey toldTask & Purpose in a phone interview. “I represent the president in court and I represent Eddie Gallagher in court.”

Despite reports that President Trump is considering pardoning Gallagher on Memorial Day, Mukasey denied negotiating terms with the president.

“If a pardon dropped down from heaven, obviously we would consider that,” Mukasey said, but insisted, “If there’s somebody pushing things in back channels, it’s not me.”

Other members of the Gallagher legal team include former NYPD Commissioner Bernard Kerik and Tim Parlatore, an attorney who represented Fox News’s Pete Hegseth (who has been privately lobbying Trump since January to pardon Gallagher).

Colorado man Patrick Frazee pleaded not guilty on Friday in the alleged murder of his fiancée Kelsey Berreth. Trial is set to begin October 28. Teller County investigators say that he tried to recruit ex-girlfriend, Idaho woman Krystal Jean Kenney Lee to kill the victim, then did the deed himself.

BREAKING: Frazee has entered a not guilty plea. Monday October 28th at 8:30 is his jury trial. Consumptive testing hearing will take place on June 14th at 9 am. A motions hearing will happen August 23rd at 9am. Friday October 18th is a Pretoria’s readiness date. @KKTV11News

Berreth was last seen on Walmart surveillance footage from November 22, 2018, police said in an affidavit. Officers claimed that there were previously three occasions when Frazee asked Lee to commit the murder. For example, one alleged plot was to sneak Valium into the victim’s coffee at a Starbucks. This didn’t happen.

Frazee and Berreth had a daughter together, and according to Lee, the defendant claimed that the victim abused this girl. (The affiant said he didn’t to find any reports of child abuse or neglect.)

Finally, Frazee allegedly said he tricked Berreth into putting on a blindfold, and he hit her with a baseball bat. The defendant allegedly had Lee clean up the scene. He also tried to have her dispose of the burnt body, but she refused, according to police. Instead, she was responsible for disposing of other evidence, including the victim’s purse. Frazee also had her text him using Berreth’s phone up to November 25. The idea was to mislead police as to the real date of the victim’s disappearance. They also disposed of her gun in a bid to make it look like she committed suicide, police said.

Investigators have yet to find a body, but authorities argue this is a murder. Despite nationwide media attention, no one has come forward saying they saw her, her family and friends haven’t heard from her, and there’s been no logins on her email accounts or use of her bank account, police said.

Keith Raniere, the 58-year-old accused leader of a coercive sex cult known as NXIVM, allegedly struggled to get or maintain an erection, a woman testified in a Brooklyn courtroom on Thursday.

The 33-year-old woman, identified only as Daniela, told the court that Raniere had trouble maintaining an erection when they first had sex. According to the New York Post, Daniela testified that Raniere kept trying to convince her that he penetrated her, insisting that she could not feel it because she was “in her own head.” Raniere allegedly performed oral sex on Daniela back in 2003. That act is said to have occurred on Daniela’s 18th birthday.

“I didn’t think he’d penetrated me,” Daniela testified. “He was telling me he had penetrated me.” She later added, “[T]hat’s still a point of debate. I was there. It’s my body … I’m sure he did not penetrate me then.”

When she was asked about whether Raniere “had difficulty getting or maintain an erection” during ensuing sexual encounters, Daniela answered in the affirmative.

She that Raniere nicknamed her “Norelco” (after an electric shaver company) because she did not have pubic hair. She also said Raniere told her she needed to lose weight for the sake of his “sexual energy.”

“[H]e was very sensitive to that […] So when a woman was overweight, fat, it disrupted his energy,” she said.

As the New York Daily News reported, Daniela was first introduced to NXIVM in 2002 when her parents offered her a two-week trip to visit them. She said her parents called Raniere “the smartest man in the world.”

She said that Raniere developed a sexual interest in her and offered to “tutor” her if she agreed to aside her schooling. “Don’t go to school,” is what Raniere said, according to Daniela. She actually turned down an opportunity to go to boarding school in the Swiss Alps.

Daniela expalined that she had a falling out with the group when she admitted to stealing $6,000 from its administrative office. Even though she confessed and returned the money the next day, she was ostracized by the group.

“He was a shoulder to cry on,” Daniela said in court. “At the time he felt like the only person who was on my side, in fact. I think he made himself the hero of the story. He created a horrible situation so I became closer and more dependent on him.”

NXIVM was founded by Raniere as a “self-improvement group,” but prosecutors alleged that women were recruited to be his sex slaves. Victims were allegedly branded, sexually abused, and tortured. The sex cult case has already led to multiple guilty pleas: NXIVM bookkeeper Kathy Russell, Lauren and Nancy Salzman, Smallville actress Allison Mack and Seagram’s heiress Clare Bronfman have all pleaded guilty for their roles in the racketeering conspiracy.

These pleas allowed the defendants to avoid the sex trafficking charges Raniere faces. He has pleaded not guilty to racketeering conspiracy, child sexual exploitation and possession of child pornography charges.

Deputies in Florida say a 4-month-old girl has passed away, and they know who is responsible. Daycare center co-owner Darryl Ewing was arrested Wednesday on a charge of child neglect, according to a statement from the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office.

Things apparently started as expected yesterday. Ewing picked up the victim from her home in the morning, and transported them to the daycare, said deputies. The defendant was allegedly the only staffer involved. Authorities said all but one of the children were offloaded. The 4-month-old was left alone in the vehicle, strapped in her car seat in the third row of the van, deputies said. She was allegedly abandoned there for about 4.5 hours.

Authorities did not describe the cause of death. In other cases, children have died because of high-temperatures inside a vehicle. Records show that outdoor temperature hit a high of 92 degrees in Jacksonville on Wednesday.

Whatever happened, deputies said that the girl’s mother called at 1:03 p.m. to make after school arrangements for all her children. It was allegedly revealed that the 4-month-old was never checked into the daycare, but two of the mother’s two other children were. Staffers discovered the child in the van, unresponsive. It was to no avail. She was pronounced dead at a hospital.

Authorities blame Ewing. He was allegedly the driver of the van. Therefore, he was responsible for filling a log documenting the children put in the vehicle, and in charge of bringing them into the daycare center, deputies said.

Deputies said that Ewing refused to speak with investigators. Records show that he remains in jail in lieu of $75,003 bond. No attorney of record is named.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, currently serving a 50-week jail sentence in Britain for bail-skipping, was hit with an 18-count superseding indictment in the United States on Thursday, alleging that he had done far more than conspiring with former U.S. Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning to commit computer intrusion back in 2010. Assange has been charged with violating the Espionage Act; Manning was convicted for that offense in 2013 after the leaking of thousands of highly sensitive government documents to WikiLeaks.

Here are the main reactions to this major development in the legal arena.

How to get the press on your side?

Conversation and commentary immediately centered on the First Amendment implications of the charges. Since it is true that there has “never previously been a successful prosecution of a third party (as opposed to the leaker)” under the Espionage Act, the case is shaping up to be a “major test case of whether the First Amendment protects the right to publish,” University of Texas Law Prof. Steve Vladeckexplained.

As Vladeck noted, the issue here–and this is why there are plenty of journalists sounding the alarm–is that the Espionage Act “doesn’t distinguish between what Assange allegedly did and what mainstream outlets sometimes do, even if the underlying facts/motives are radically different.”

Well done! DOJ picks the surest way to get the press on Assange's side.

“Today the government charged Julian Assange under the Espionage Act for encouraging sources to provide him truthful information and for publishing that information. The fig leaf that this is merely about alleged computer hacking has been removed,” Pollack said in a statement. “These unprecedented charges demonstrate the gravity of the threat the criminal prosecution of Julian Assange poses to all journalists to inform the public about actions that have been taken by the U.S. government.”

National security lawyer Bradley P. Moss told Law&Crime that if the DOJ actually prosecutes Assange and gets a conviction the chilling effect on media outlets will be very real.

“If DOJ is ultimately able to successfully pursue this case, beat back any First Amendment defenses Assange might raise regarding the Espionage Act charges and get a conviction, it puts every single media outlet at risk going forward,” Moss said. “No matter their size, ideological bent or intent, any media outlet that publishes leaked classified information in the future would be at legitimate risk of criminal prosecution. No previous administration was willing to jeopardize the foundation of a free press like this: Donald Trump apparently is willing to do so.”

Is it a “political offense” or a national security offense? Can Assange be extradited?

Prof. Vladeck also pointed out that a UK-U.S. treaty currently in place could complicate things significantly when it comes to actually getting Assange to the United States.

Former State Department legal adviser John Bellinger explained to NPR back in April that the treaty prevents an individual from being extradited from the UK for a “political offense.”

“There’s a extradition treaty that entered into force during the Bush administration. It’s been in effect for about 10 years. And it defines the crimes for which individuals can be extradited from the U.S. or from the U.K.,” Bellinger said. “And it says that an individual may not be extradited for a political offense, but that’s not defined.”

Then the caveat: “But historically, under international law, a political offense is an offense against the state such as espionage or sedition or treason.”

Again, Assange is being charged for violating the Espionage Act. Bellinger anticipated that Assange’s lawyers would use the “political offense” argument as “one of their chief defenses.”

Bellinger went so far as to suggest that the DOJ didn’t charge Assange with violating the Espionage Act precisely because of potential extradition complications.

“And that’s one of the reasons I suspect that the charges by the Justice Department were very carefully tailored not to charge him under our espionage laws but instead to charge him with conspiracy to hack into a computer so that he’s not being charged with a political offense,” he said.

Prosecutors, however, were quite clear about what they think happened here.

“Assange and WikiLeaks have repeatedly sought, obtained, and disseminated information that the United States classified due to the serious risk that unauthorized disclosure could harm the national security of the United States,” the indictment said.

John Demers, the head of the Justice Department’s National Security Division, declared Thursday that Assange was “no journalist.”

“The department takes seriously the role of journalists in our democracy and we thank you for it,” he said. “It has not and never has been the department’s policy to target them for reporting. But Julian Assange is no journalist.”

I’m not saying the “political offense” claim will succeed, but it opens the door to the argument in a way that the first indictment did not.

Another potential extradition issue is that the U.S. isn’t the only nation seeking Assange’s extradition.

Both the United States and Sweden have criminal cases at the ready against Assange, and it will be up to Britain to decide who gets the first crack. Deputy Director of Public Prosecution in Sweden Eva-Marie Persson recently issued a detention order on Monday to have Assange extradited to Sweden after he is released from the Belmarsh prison in London.

“If the court decides to detain him, I will issue a European Arrest Warrant concerning surrender to Sweden,” Persson said. Swedish prosecutors are seeking to prosecute Assange over a rape allegation dating back to 2010. Sweden reopened that case after Assange was hauled out of the Ecuadorian embassy.

As the New York Post reported, two women in Sweden previously accused Assange of sex crimes. One case disappeared because of the statute of limitations, but the rape case can still be prosecuted. The statute of limitations runs out in 2020. Assange has denied the allegations, but did not deny sexual activity. He called the allegations political and the sex consensual, per the Post. Assange was accused of raping a woman while she slept — without a condom.

This is why the Obama Administration didn’t go there (sort of)

Former members of the Obama Administration (such as Matthew Miller below) were quick to say that this is why that administration ultimately didn’t charge anyone according to this theory.

Dangerous and probably unconstitutional. DOJ doesn't get to decide who is deserving of first amendment protections and who isn't. There's a reason we wouldn't charge this in the Obama administration. https://t.co/oKt9Ob59bJ

As I’ve been saying for several years, there are very good reasons we didn’t charge this theory in the Obama admin. And it’s not like we had a record reporters loved on these issues. https://t.co/V11PvEF28x

“As I’ve been saying for several years, there are very good reasons we didn’t charge this theory in the Obama admin. And it’s not like we had a record reporters loved on these issues,” Miller noted.

The story of former Fox News correspondent James Rosen immediately came to mind. Former President Barack Obama‘s DOJ once labeled Rosen “an aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator” under the Espionage Act.

This case was just one of the examples the Baltimore Sun‘s media critic David Zurawik mentioned in a provocatively headlined piece from 2017. The headline: “Trump’s war on press no match for Obama’s.” Perhaps Zurawik might feel differently in light of the latest news, but that is not for us to say.

In any event, here’s what Zurawik wrote on the Rosen case:

And, in fairness to Trump, his administration has not escalated the conflict with the press to a new level. It has not yet come close to doing what President Obama’s administration did in making the act of reporting itself criminal behavior in a case that started in 2009 under the Espionage Act of 1917.

At the heart of the case is James Rosen, chief Washington correspondent for Fox News, publishing information about North Korea that he received from a State Department employee.

In obtaining a subpoena to access Rosen’s phone and computer records, the Justice Department labeled him “an aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator.” It also described him as a flight risk. Branding a reporter that way in court documents had never been done by the government. Since the case was widely reported, I am surprised an act that really was unprecedented was overlooked by so many pundits in making their worst-ever analyses.

“This is the first time that the federal government has moved to this level of taking ordinary, reasonable, traditional, lawful reporter skills and claiming they constitute criminal behavior,” Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst Andrew Napolitano opined at the time.

What is the DOJ driving at here?

One takeaway on the news is that the DOJ could be attempting to amp up the “leverage” so as to box Assange into pleading guilty.

As I predicted, DOJ added many additional charges against Julian Assange. Their initial charge was risky and had evidentiary issues, given that Assange's alleged co-conspirator is unwilling to cooperate with DOJ.

But, given the possible pitfalls we’ve described, it’s also been suggested that the DOJ decision is meant to “send a signal.”

I’ve read Assange indictment, I’m surprised the DOJ went after the espionage act. I expected something more, and most everything here has been known for years. I think it’s a gamble and could backfire, but I wonder if maybe the administration just wants to send a signal

Julian Assange gestures to the media from a police vehicle on his arrival at Westminster Magistrates court on April 11, 2019 in London, England. After weeks of speculation Wikileaks founder Julian Assange was arrested by Scotland Yard Police Officers inside the Ecuadorian Embassy in Central London this morning.

The Justice Department just unveiled an 18 count indictment against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for his role in eliciting classified documents that exposed U.S. government sources in the Middle East. You can read the full indictment below.

John Demers, the head of the Justice Department’s National Security Division, said that Assange published a “narrow subset” of documents that revealed the identity of sources in Afghanistan and Iraq. Demers said that no “responsible” journalist would have published these documents.

“The department takes seriously the role of journalists in our democracy and we thank you for it,” Demers said. “It has not and never has been the department’s policy to target them for reporting. But Julian Assange is no journalist.”

Wikileaks responded on Twitter: “This is madness. It is the end of national security journalism and the first amendment.”

As I predicted, DOJ added many additional charges against Julian Assange. Their initial charge was risky and had evidentiary issues, given that Assange's alleged co-conspirator is unwilling to cooperate with DOJ.

This indictment comes after Assange was indicted in April on one count of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion for his role in Chelsea Manning‘s leaking of thousands of highly sensitive government documents in 2010. The main allegation in that indictment is that in March 2010, “Assange agreed to assist Manning in cracking a password stored on United States Department of Defense Computers connected to the Secret Internet Protocol Network,” which is used to handle classified documents. This agreement happened after Manning had already given WikiLeaks hundreds of thousands of documents.

There were hints that the government was seeking new charges against Assange when Manning was served with a subpoena for her testimony against Assange. Assange allegedly helped Manning hack government computers, tried to hide Manning’s role in leaks, and encouraged her continue leaking. Last week, Chelsea Manning was jailed for refusing to comply with the subpoena.

The Justice Department defended Donald Trump’s redistribution of billions of dollars previously earmarked by Congress to fund a wall at the US-Mexico border in court on Thursday. The administration asserted that Congress lacks the legal standing to sue the President, an argument that, if accepted, could have widespread legal repercussions for dealing with inter-branch governmental conflicts.

The dispute centers on Trump’s decision to pay for a border wall with money that Congress had already designated be spent on other projects.

Trump originally requested $5.7 billion in wall funding for fiscal year 2019, of which Congress appropriated $1.375 billion toward constructing border fence projects. Trump declared a national emergency in February, claiming approximately $8.1 billion for his wall by redirecting approximately $600 million in Treasury Department forfeiture funds, $2.5 billion in Defense Department drug interdiction funds, and $3.6 billion from the military construction budget.

House Democrats responded by filing a lawsuit against the administration in April, contending that the president usurped Congress’ legislative authority by using an emergency declaration as a way to reappropriate border wall funding, despite Congress’s lack of approval. In the complaint, the House argued that Trump demonstrated “a shocking disregard” for the Constitution’s appropriations clause, which empowers Congress to distribute money from the Treasury.

Appearing before Trump-appointed U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden Thursday, Justice Department attorney James Burnham argued that the framers of the Constitution “would have been horrified” by the prospect that one branch of government has the ability to sue another branch of government. As noted in a report from BuzzFeed News, McFadden was receptive to the argument. He appeared skeptical of House Democrats’ legal standing to bring the case at all and wondered if allowing the inter-branch litigation to continue would violate the principles of separation of powers.

Attorney Douglas Letter, general counsel to the House of Representatives, promulgated the theory that the Constitution did, in fact, intend for Congress to have standing to sue the President, and that in a dispute such as this, it’s the role of the courts to step in and say, “[H]ere’s what the law means.”

Letter’s fundamental argument on behalf of House Democrats is that Congress is empowered to decide how money is spent — which it did, only to have Trump ignore the decree of the legislature and usurp its power.

Burnham essentially countered that by noting that Trump did not ignore Congress; he simply invoked his power to reallocate certain Department of Defense funds, a power expressly granted to him through a law passed by Congress.

Judge McFadden’s interest may have been piqued by Burnham’s argument, as he then questioned Letter about the fact that Trump was acting within the procedural confines of a process specifically approved by Congress. Letter responded that it was still an unlawful sidestepping of Congress’ authority, as it had clearly denied Trump funding for the specific project in question when finalizing the budget.

Judge McFadden did not give any indication as to when he would rule, though Burnham requested that he wait for acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan to announce how the administration planned to spend the money reallocated from the military construction budget before ruling.

Jane Doe 3 took the stand Thursdayin the Kellen Winslow II rape and sexual misconduct trial and testified that she didn’t see the defendant’s face, only his tattoos.

#KellenWinslow – Jane Doe #3 describes the man who exposed himself to her: “I saw his body only, I didn’t see his face. He has a muscular body.” She saw tattoos from his shoulder to wrist. One tattoo was blue (photo of Winslow for reference only. not in court) pic.twitter.com/0ZD95c5A2j

Winslow, a former tight end in the NFL, is on trial in California for allegations involving five women. Prosecutors said he raped three women and victimized two others with lewd acts during unrelated incidents dating back to 2003. Jane Doe 3 claimed that the defendant took his pants off and his exposed his penis to her while she was cutting flowers in front of her house.

The defense is trying to argue that the alleged rapes were just consensual sex. Winslow admittedly cheated on his wife, but did nothing illegal, said lawyer Brian Watkins in opening statements. The defense is also trying to show that the other incidents didn’t happen, at least as alleged.

Under cross-examination, the woman described the suspect as being a few inches taller than her.

Law&Crime Network analyst Elura Nanos said that the defense would try to show that Jane Doe 3 didn’t really know who exposed himself to her that day. She found this testimony to be strong, however.

“What I’m seeing here is really the perfect, most credible witness because what we have is the body-cam video. She’s more agitated, she’s more emotional,” said Nanos. “Which is what we would expect because it happened right at the time that this crime happened. But the significant details–what happened, how it happened, how she knew it was this guy, what she observed, what she didn’t observe–all of those things are entirely consistent with what she said today in court.”

Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 testified earlier this week. They claimed Winslow raped them in unrelated incidents. Like Jane Doe 3, they were in their 50s. Jane Doe 1, however, was told to identify the defendant in a preliminary hearing last year. She instead pointed out at Winslow’s lawyer, Brian Watkins.

#KellenWinslow – Under cross-examination Jane Doe #1 defending her misidentification of the lawyer instead of Winslow she said Winslow’s hair is different than at preliminary hearing. Winslow shakes his head. pic.twitter.com/dauPeKoGUo

]]>https://lawandcrime.com/live-trials/live-trials-current/kellen-winslow-ii/jane-doe-3-testifies-that-she-didnt-see-kellens-winslow-iis-face-only-his-tattoos/feed/0Daily Debrief May 23rd, 2019https://lawandcrime.com/podcasts/daily-debrief-may-23rd-2019/
https://lawandcrime.com/podcasts/daily-debrief-may-23rd-2019/#respondThu, 23 May 2019 19:39:59 +0000https://lawandcrime.com/?p=143796Accuser after accuser testify against a former NFL player on trial for alleged sex crime.

Plus, in South Carolina, a man who killed his five kids claims insanity. Does an old brain injury give him an excuse?

]]>https://lawandcrime.com/podcasts/daily-debrief-may-23rd-2019/feed/0As Recently as Four Years Ago, ‘American Taliban’ Suggested ISIS Was Just Misunderstoodhttps://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/as-recently-as-four-years-ago-american-taliban-suggested-isis-was-just-misunderstood/
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/as-recently-as-four-years-ago-american-taliban-suggested-isis-was-just-misunderstood/#respondThu, 23 May 2019 18:58:14 +0000https://lawandcrime.com/?p=143781

Police file photo made available February 6, 2002 of the “American Taliban” John Walker Lindh and at right a February 11, 2002 photograph of him as seen from the records of the Arabia Hassani Kalan Surani Bannu madrassa (religious school) in Pakistan’s northwestern city of Bannu.

So-called “American Taliban” John Walker Lindh was released from prison on Thursday, but an article in the Atlanticshows that Lindh remained interested in the Islamic State as recently as four years ago — even going so far as to suggest ISIS was misunderstood.

The Atlantic’s Graeme Wood sent letters to Lindh to ask for his advice on “jihadism, Islamic law, and the Islamic State.” Lindh wrote back to Wood (under the name Yahya Lindh). Lindh thanked Wood for his interest in the Islamic State, more commonly known these days as ISIS:

In order for me to even consider responding to your inquiry, I would require that you furnish me with books, treatises, articles, or other writings produced by leaders of the Islamic State and/or scholars affiliated with it (preferably in the original Arabic). It would not be appropriate for me to comment otherwise.

Thank you for your interest in the Islamic State.

In response, Wood sent a “big stack of essays, speeches, and fatwas by ISIS scholars” to the Terre Haute penitentiary for Lindh. The warden at the prison confiscated the package as ISIS propaganda. Lindh still wrote back to Wood, suggesting that ISIS was merely misunderstood:

Considering the attention that the Islamic State has attracted from the media, academics, researchers, and others over the past couple of years, it is striking to me how few appear to have actually visited the Islamic State to see how things really are there and to meet and interview its leaders … I would like to suggest that you visit the Islamic State yourself so that you can pose your questions directly to its officials and leaders. I am sure there are ways that that can be arranged.

After Wood worried that he might be enslaved or beheaded if he went out to interview ISIS leaders, Lindh said, “I understand your concerns about.” Even so, Lindh downplayed those concerns:

[H]owever I believe that your apprehensions are misplaced. The journalists who have been taken into custody by the authorities of the Islamic State travelled there illegally. Had they gone with the proper documentation, I am confident that the authorities of the Islamic State would have honoured their covenants, as required by Islamic law.

Lindh’s father, Frank Lindh, told Wood that his son was a political prisoner and his only ambitions are to become an Islamic scholar.

Lindh, dubbed the “American Taliban,” was released on Thursday after serving 17 years in prison. In 2002, Lindh accepted a plea deal from the government. He pleaded guilty to supplying services to the Taliban and carrying explosives in commission of a felony and was sentenced to 20 years in prison.

“[He is] still is threatening the United States of America [and was] still committed to the very jihad that he engaged in,” Pompeo said.

[Image via Tariq Mahmood/AFP/Getty Images]

]]>https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/as-recently-as-four-years-ago-american-taliban-suggested-isis-was-just-misunderstood/feed/0Detectives: Doctors Found Drugs in Butt of 13-Time Convicted Felon Who Shot Himself ‘Through His Testicles’https://lawandcrime.com/crazy/detectives-doctors-found-drugs-in-butt-of-13-time-convicted-felon-who-shot-himself-through-his-testicles/
https://lawandcrime.com/crazy/detectives-doctors-found-drugs-in-butt-of-13-time-convicted-felon-who-shot-himself-through-his-testicles/#respondThu, 23 May 2019 18:30:48 +0000https://lawandcrime.com/?p=143777

Doctors performing surgery on a 13-time convicted felon who had accidentally shot himself in the testicles discovered drugs hidden in the man’s rectum, according to Chelan County detectives in Washington state.

Local news outlet Wenatchee World News reported that Cameron Jeffrey Wilson, 27, had a pistol tucked into his front pocket while at his apartment on April 5. The the firearm accidentally discharged, “sending a bullet through his testicles and into his thigh.” To avoid being charged with unlawful possession of a firearm, Wilson’s girlfriend reportedly drove him to a friend’s house, where he left the pistol before heading to the hospital to undergo surgery.

Wilson apparently forgot to rid himself of all incriminating evidence, however, as illustrated by the balloon filled with marijuana that is said to have slipped out of his rectal cavity during his surgery. This led police, who were alerted of the gunshot wound, to perform a search of Wilson’s vehicle. Authorities reportedly discovered a bag of methamphetamine inside the pocket of a pair of blood-soaked jeans that Wilson had allegedly been wearing at the time he shot himself.

Rather than arresting Wilson in the immediate aftermath of his surgery, police allowed Wilson to turn himself in two days later. When he did so, police performed a cavity search and reportedly discovered another bag of marijuana in Wilson’s rectum.

Wilson was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm, unlawful possession of a controlled substance, and possession of a controlled substance in a correctional facility. But Wilson wasn’t done.

One week later, Wilson was charged with four counts of witness tampering when police reportedly listened to multiple phone calls Wilson made from the jail. Authorities said he asked his girlfriend not to cooperate with investigators.

Wilson is currently being held on $110,000 bail and is due in court June 18.

[Image via Chelan County Department of Corrections]

]]>https://lawandcrime.com/crazy/detectives-doctors-found-drugs-in-butt-of-13-time-convicted-felon-who-shot-himself-through-his-testicles/feed/0Former Prosecutor Who Argued Hillary Clinton Could Be Indicted Over Email Scandal Is Now a Federal Judgehttps://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/former-prosecutor-who-argued-hillary-clinton-could-be-indicted-over-email-scandal-is-now-a-federal-judge/
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/former-prosecutor-who-argued-hillary-clinton-could-be-indicted-over-email-scandal-is-now-a-federal-judge/#respondThu, 23 May 2019 17:35:18 +0000https://lawandcrime.com/?p=143752

But his argument!

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina has a new judge on the bench — one who just so happens to have argued in that past that Hillary Clinton could have been indicted over a certain email scandal. The U.S. Senate voted to confirm Kenneth Bell to his post 55-43 on Wednesday. Bell is both a former prosecutor and a partner at the McGuireWoods law firm.

It was U.S. Sens. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) and Richard Burr (R-N.C.) who recommended Bell.

As Bloomberg Law noted, an op-ed that Bell wrote for the Charlotte Observer back in July 2016 garnered some attention among Democratic senators, such Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.).

As a former federal prosecutor, I disagree with FBI Director James Comey’s assertion that “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring felony charges against Hillary Clinton for mishandling “classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way.” To the contrary, any reasonable prosecutor would indict. “Only facts matter,” as Comey said.

As Secretary of State, Clinton used several personal, unclassified email servers, none supported by full-time security staff. Her email was less secure than Gmail. Among Clinton’s emails, 110 contained information classified at the time sent and received; eight contained Top Secret information. Three emails not produced by Clinton were also classified at the time sent and received. Another 2,000 emails were later determined to contain classified information.

Bell went on to say that Comey “got out of his lane in telling the world no prosecution should, or would, be brought.”

“FBI agents investigate and present facts to prosecutors. Prosecutors decide whether to bring charges,” he continued. “This decision wasn’t up to Comey. Attorney General Lynch accepted Comey’s recommendation in less than a day. No ‘reasonable prosecutor’ would do that.”

Q: What evidence do you have that Secretary Clinton “placed her compulsion for privacy and personal convenience above the security interests of the country”?

A: My 2016 opinion piece was written based upon nearly 18 years as a federal prosecutor, 10 of which I served as First Assistant United States Attorney under both Democrat and Republican appointed United States Attorneys, and 17 years as a defense attorney. It particularly criticized then FBI Director Comey for stating a prosecutorial decision, which in mv view at the time should have been left to officials of the Department of Justice. In my view at the time, it would have equally been a usurpation of the Attorney General’s authority for Director Comey to state that “every reasonable prosecutor” would pursue an indictment.

My personal opinion expressed in the 2016 op-ed was based on general media reports about Secretary Clinton’s email practices while she was Secretary of State.

Q: What evidence do you have that Secretary Clinton used “personal servers so as to keep government records inaccessible”?

A: My personal opinion expressed in the 2016 op-ed was based on general media reports that Secretary Clinton maintained unsecured personal servers for convenience, and that thousands of official emails were found on those servers.

Q: During your time as an Assistant United States Attorney, how many cases did you work on that involved allegations of mishandling classified information? Please provide the name and citation of each case, and the nature of your involvement in the case, including whether you served as chief counsel on the matter.

A: As an Assistant United States Attorney I did not work on any cases involving allegations of mishandling classified information. Both as an Assistant United States Attorney and as a defense attorney I have received very high security clearances and been given access to highly classified information. As part of those clearances I received security briefings regarding the appropriate handling of classified information and the criminal penalties for failing to handle classified information appropriately.

Cook County Judge Stephen Watkinsunsealed the documents that stemmed from the criminal charges against former Empire actor Jussie Smollett. Smollett’s lawyers got the records on his case sealed at March hearing—over which Watkins presided—where the 16 felony counts of disorderly conduct for allegedly filing a false report for dismissed. Smollett wanted to keep the case under wraps — but something Smollett did after the case really hurt him.

“Smollett voluntarily appeared on national television speaking about the incident in detail,” Judge Watkins said. “After the March dismissal, he stood in front of numerous cameras… in the courthouse lobby speaking about the case.” He added, “these are not the actions of a person seeking simply to maintain his privacy or simply to be let alone.”

The files were originally sealed under an Illinois law that allows the documents of dismissed cases to remain sealed. The media organizations argue that the national news coverage of Smollett’s case gives the public a right to view those documents. Smollett’s lawyers argue that he should not be treated any differently than anyone else just because his case gained publicity. The judge ruled against Smollett.”

Smollett claimed he was doused with a bleach-like substance while out walking in Chicago. He said two attackers came armed with a noose and spewed racist and homophobic slurs at him, declaring that it was “MAGA country.” After a while, Chicago Police accused Smollett of paying Abel and Ola Osundairo to stage a hate crime.

Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx came under fire after she announced that in exchange for the charges being dropped, Smollett will forfeit his $10,000 bond and agreeing to perform “voluntary” community service. Foxx said that, “after reviewing all of the facts and circumstances of the case, including Mr. Smollett’s volunteer service in the community and agreement to forfeit his bond to the City of Chicago, we believe this outcome is a just disposition and appropriate resolution to this case.”

[Image via Facebook screengrab]

]]>https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/smolletts-own-actions-prevented-judge-from-keeping-his-police-file-secret/feed/0Family of Incapacitated Woman Who Was Allegedly Raped at Facility Says She May Have Been Pregnant Beforehttps://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/family-of-incapacitated-woman-who-was-allegedly-raped-says-she-may-have-been-pregnant-before/
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/family-of-incapacitated-woman-who-was-allegedly-raped-says-she-may-have-been-pregnant-before/#respondThu, 23 May 2019 16:58:19 +0000https://lawandcrime.com/?p=143744

The family of an incapacitated woman who was been allegedly raped by a health care facility employee suggests that the woman might have been pregnant before. The family filed a notice of claim on Wednesday against Arizona, saying that they would settle the case for $45 million. A spokesman for office of Gov. Doug Ducey said they got a copy of the claim are looking into it, according to AZ Central.

The woman’s case caught national attention this year when she gave birth to a baby boy at a since-shuttered Hacienda Healthcare facility. She was not in any physical condition to give consent. This was a rape, police said. Nathan Dorceus Sutherland was later identified as the assailant. He pleaded not guilty, and his case remains ongoing.

The state is being targeted in the proposed lawsuit because its Medicaid program funds Hacienda, and manages cases through an agency. This woman’s family said healthcare providers were negligent. For example, they allowed male caregivers (like Sutherland) in the room even though the support plan mandated that only female staffers should be there.

Maricopa County medical examiners said it looked like the woman had been “violated” multiple times, and the birth was probably a “repeat parous event,” according to the notice as reported by AZ Family. In other words, it looked like she had been pregnant before.

They also accused the facility of failing to figure out that the woman was pregnant until a staffer when to change her and found “a baby’s head in her briefs.” Instead, it had been believed that the patient was just gaining weight, so a doctor had her feeding tube discontinued on Dec. 13, 2018 in a bid to fix that.

The family alleged that the woman was alone with Sutherland hundreds of times.

The patient and her relatives belong to the San Carlos Apache Tribe. According to the notice of claim, she had been with Hacienda since since was 3 years old because she developed seizures when she was 2 months old.

When news first broke about her pregnancy, a source told KPHO that none of the staff realized she’d been pregnant until “she was pretty much giving birth.” At the time, it was reported she had been in the facility after being in a near-drowning incident.

Sens. Rand Paul (R- Ky.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) introduced legislation Thursday that would prohibit the government from searching Americans’ electronic devices at the border without a warrant. The bill is co-sponsored by Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.).

The Protecting Data at the Border Act would bar law enforcement agencies from searching the data contained in the personal electronic devices of Americans at border crossings without first informing travelers of their rights and obtaining their consent. Searches of electronic devices have quadrupled over the last four years, with many travelers remaining uncertain of their rights and the government’s limits.

“Such searches are extraordinarily invasive, as modern devices store all manner of highly personal information including pictures, videos, texts, emails, location data, Internet search histories, calendars and other data,” Wyden’s office said in a statement on Thursday.

The legislation is a direct response to a December report from the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) which found a 50-percent increase in electronic device searches conducted by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) for the fiscal year.

The OIG report included accounts of procedural failures regarding the searches conducted by CBP officers, including numerous instances where searches were improperly documented, private data was not properly secured, and officers searched travelers’ online cloud content without proper consent, a clear violation of CBP protocols.

According to the report, “at three of the five ports, we found thumb drives that contained information copied from past advanced searches, meaning the information had not been deleted after the searches were completed.” The report concluded that CBP jeopardized American’s private data by consistently failing “to implement a requirement to delete copied information, increasing the risk of unauthorized disclosure of travelers’ data should thumb drives be lost or stolen.”

In announcing their bill, Wyden stated, “The border is quickly becoming a rights-free zone for Americans who travel,” adding that “the government shouldn’t be able to review your whole digital life simply because you went on vacation, or had to travel for work.”

Tchen, who was formerly chief of staff to Michelle Obama, refused to to meet with a process server that was trying to serve her the subpoena at her office, according to reporting from the Chicago Sun-Times. The guard told the process server that Tchen “knew about” the subpoena, but that she refused to come down and accept it.

The subpoena was issued by former Illinois Appellate Judge Sheila O’Brien, who is advocating for a special prosecutor to look into how the Foxx’s office handled the dismissal of charges against Smollett. The subpoena issued to Tchen was for “any and all documents, notes, phone records, texts, tape recordings made or received at any time, concerning [Tchen’s] conversations with Kim Foxx in re: Jussie Smollett.”

Some of Tchen’s correspondence with Foxx was previously leaked. In one exchange, Foxx told Tchen that she “spoke to Superintendent Johnson. I convinced him to reach out to FBI to ask that they take over the investigation. He is reaching out now and will get back to me shortly.”

BREAKING: Texts between Obama aide Tina Tchen and Kim Foxx, who dropped charges against Jussie Smollett, have leaked. An investigation into whether Foxx dropped charges against Smollett at the request of Tina Tchen is underway. Michelle Obama also knew Smollett very well pic.twitter.com/TvV5ZvXNKj

“I know members of the Smollett family based on prior work together,” Tchen said after the case was dropped against Smollett. “Shortly after Mr. Smollett reported he was attacked, as a family friend, I contacted Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx, who I also know from prior work together.”

“My sole activity was to put the chief prosecutor in the case in touch with an alleged victim’s family who had concerns about how the investigation was being characterized in public,” she added.

The Smollett case gained nationwide attention after the actor claimed he was doused with a bleach-like substance while out walking in Chicago. He said two attackers came armed with a noose and spewed racist and homophobic slurs at him, declaring that it was “MAGA country.” After a while, Chicago Police accused Smollett of paying Abel and Ola Osundairo to stage a hate crime. Smollett was charged with 16 felony counts of disorderly conduct for allegedly filing a false report. The charges against Smollett were later dropped in exchange for theactor forfeiting his $10,000 bond and agreeing to perform “voluntary” community service.

Chef Mario Batali, once known for his Food Network appearances, has been charged for allegedly groping a woman without consent. Here’s what we know about the new criminal case, and the other long-running sexual misconduct allegations against the disgraced, celebrity gourmet.

1. Charges in Boston

Police claim the 58-year-old chef kissed and groped a woman at a restaurant in 2017, according to The Boston Globe. Batali is charged with indecent assault and battery. He is set to be arraigned on Friday. If convicted, he Batali spend 2.5 years in prison. He would have to register as a sex offender.

The alleged victim’s name was redacted from court records, but several outlets have noted that the details match up with a lawsuit filed in August by a Massachusetts woman.

Batali’s defense attorney Anthony Fuller said it was the same woman. He denied the allegation.

“The charges, brought by the same individual without any new basis, are without merit,” Fuller told the Globe. “He intends to fight the allegations vigorously and we expect the outcome to fully vindicate Mr. Batali.”

2. The Prior Lawsuit

The woman sued Batali in August 2018. She claimed that he caught her taking a photo of him at the Towne Stove and Spirits restaurant. She said Batali invited her over for a selfie, but that he then began kissing her face. She also said Batali groped her breasts, rear and groin.

Attorneys for the woman told Boston.com that she reported this incident to the Boston Police Department on June 22, 2018.

3. Disgraced Chef

Batali faced misconduct allegations before the woman filed her August 2018 complaint.

First there was that Eater report in December 2017. It showed that four women claimed the chef groped them. Three of them had worked for him. He didn’t deny the claims.

“I apologize to the people I have mistreated and hurt. Although the identities of most of the individuals mentioned in these stories have not been revealed to me, much of the behavior described does, in fact, match up with ways I have acted. That behavior was wrong and there are no excuses,” he said in a statement to the outlet. “I take full responsibility and am deeply sorry for any pain, humiliation or discomfort I have caused to my peers, employees, customers, friends and family.”

4. The Spotted Pig

Batali has long been poised to face legal problems from different angles. After all, he was implicated in the downfall of The Spotted Pig, a formerly popular New York City restaurant. It was alleged that he had groped and kissed an unconscious woman at a 2008 party. This allegedly happened in a V.I.P. room that was so infamous employees called it the “rape room,” according to a New York Times profile.

“Though I don’t remember these specific accounts, there is no question I have behaved terribly,” he wrote the Times in an email. “There are no excuses. I take full responsibility and am deeply sorry for any pain, humiliation or discomfort I have caused.”

]]>https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/celebrity-chef-mario-batali-officially-charged-heres-what-we-know/feed/0Bank CEO Indicted for Approving Manafort Loans in Exchange for Position in Trump Administrationhttps://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/bank-ceo-indicted-for-approving-manafort-loans-in-exchange-for-position-in-trump-administration/
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/bank-ceo-indicted-for-approving-manafort-loans-in-exchange-for-position-in-trump-administration/#respondThu, 23 May 2019 14:47:21 +0000https://lawandcrime.com/?p=143722

Federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York (SDNY) have charged Federal Savings Bank CEO Stephen M. Calk, 54, with corruptly soliciting a presidential administration position in exchange for approving $16 million in loans to twice-convicted former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort.

Audrey Strauss, the Attorney for the United States, Patricia Tarasca, the Special Agent in charge of New York Region for the FDIC Office of Inspector General, and William F. Sweeney Jr., the Assistant Director of the FBI’s New York field office, announced the unsealing of the indictment Thursday morning.

Calk is charged with financial institution bribery, prosecutors say, for “corruptly using his position as the head of a federally insured bank to issue millions of dollars in high-risk loans to a borrower in exchange for a personal benefit: assistance from the borrower in obtaining a senior position with an incoming presidential administration.”

According to the indictment, Calk “sought to leverage his control over the Bank and the loans sought by [Manafort]to his personal advantage.”

“Specifically, CALK offered to, and did, cause the Bank and Holding Company to extend $16 million in loans to [Manafort] in exchange for the [Manafort’s] requested assistance in obtaining a high-level position in the presidential administration,” the indictment continued.

Strauss said that Calk “abused the power entrusted to him as the top official of a federally insured bank by approving millions of dollars in high-risk loans in an effort to secure a personal benefit, namely an appointment as Secretary of the Army or another similarly high-level position in the incoming presidential administration.”

She also noted that his scheme was ultimately fruitless, stating that “Calk’s alleged attempt to obtain such an appointment was unsuccessful, and the loans he approved were ultimately downgraded by the bank’s primary regulator,” before thanking the FBI and FDIC OIG for their “outstanding work” in charging Calk.

“Calk went to great lengths to avoid banking violations in an attempt to secure a senior position in a presidential administration. He curried favor with an influential Borrower, exploited his position as CEO of the Bank and the Holding Company, and exercised control over the Bank and the Borrower’s loans, intentionally turning his back on the many red flags posted along the way,” Sweeney added in a statement.

Law&Crime has previously reported on the emails exchanged between Manafort and Jared Kushner in which the former describes Calk as “an active supporter of [the] campaign since April,” noting his many television appearances in support of Trump’s agenda. Manafort then relayed Calk’s “preference” to be named Secretary of the Army.

The maximum sentence for one count of financial institution bribery is 30 years in prison (it should be noted that this is a maximum not a likelihood). Calk is expected to appear before US Magistrate judge Debra Freeman Thursday afternoon.

[image via Drew Angerer_Getty Images]

]]>https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/bank-ceo-indicted-for-approving-manafort-loans-in-exchange-for-position-in-trump-administration/feed/0WaPo Ratioed into the Ground for Putting Elizabeth Warren’s Lawyer Fees Under the Spotlighthttps://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/wapo-ratioed-into-the-ground-for-putting-elizabeth-warrens-lawyer-fees-under-the-spotlight/
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/wapo-ratioed-into-the-ground-for-putting-elizabeth-warrens-lawyer-fees-under-the-spotlight/#respondThu, 23 May 2019 13:51:04 +0000https://lawandcrime.com/?p=143704

The Washington Postwanted you to know how much Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) charged per hour for her legal expertise while she worked as a professor at Ivy League schools in the 90s and 2000s. Everyone else, seemingly, wanted the Washington Post to know that it was a non-story.

Check out this ratio:

The response to the story was not particularly forgiving, especially among those who actually work in–or are generally familiar with–the legal profession.

The lack of context in this @washingtonpost story on Elizabeth Warren is outrageous. Did the reporters not know, or not care what the hourly rate is for law professors who consult for private clients? Or the hourly rate for attorneys with Warren's expertise and experience? pic.twitter.com/orQunZasGV

Many more than previously disclosed is the sort of language the press uses to manufacture a scandal where none exists. She‘s never been required to disclose them. Odd to see her being punished for actually being more transparent than most lawyers running for office are. https://t.co/QWU7q7q6EK

Love this ratio.
If Warren did no legal work as a prof, we’d see articles about Warren the ivory tower all-talk, no-work professor.
If she always took the labor side, she’d be framed as commie ideologue.
Btw, I’ve become a better teacher as I worked as amicus on more cases.

Here's what would have made this story worthwhile: (1) is it unusual for profs to represent clients? (2) is that rate unusual or above/below market? (3) do any legal experts see anything questionable about any of this?https://t.co/1iRDemCVdM

Things got weird on Wednesday in a Brooklyn, New York federal courtroom. Presiding Judge Nicholas Garaufis (who apparently has quite a reputation) erupted, yelling multiple times “You’re done” at an accused sex cult leader’s defense lawyer. It happened while a government cooperator Lauren Salzman was being cross examined by NXIVM founder Keith Raniere‘s lawyer Marc Agnifilo.

Agnifilo made sure to file a motion for a mistrial bright and early on Thursday.

Salzman is the daughter of Nancy Salzman, a NXIVM co-founder. Both of them have pleaded guilty to racketeering conspiracy, while Raniere continues to fight sex trafficking, child exploitation and child pornography charges. Just days ago, Salzman, a former NXIVM member, recounted how she and Raniere were taking a nap at a Mexican villa when the feds showed up to arrest him. She said this happened just before a planned group oral sex session was to occur.

When Salzman broke down crying on the stand Wednesday, the following exchange between Agnifilo and the judge occurred:

“I had a crisis here. And not in my courtroom,” the judge would explain after the jury exited and the witness was excused. He referred to Salzman as a “broken person.”

Agnifilo said that the judge’s actions “strike at the heart of a fair trial.”

He made two main arguments, and also suggested that the judge could have simply called for a recess, rather than exploding and shutting everything down.

First, he intervened to “save” a government witness from cross, and second he damaged the defense in the eyes of the jury by suggesting there was something wrong with a proper cross.

“Finally, for the Court to chastise counsel by repeatedly directing him to end his cross-examination and to sit down, where the Court had specifically ruled that the witness could answer the question is patently unfair. Counsel has been fair and appropriate to every witness called by the government and whatever good will counsel has endeavored to engender in the minds of the jury is now forever lost,” Agnifilo said. “There is no coming back from this. The damage is done. The witness’ cross-examination has been ended. Counsel has been dressed down in front of the jury. There is no remedy.”

In declaring a national emergency to redirect money for a border wall that Congress refused to fund back in February, many experts noted that President Donald Trump set himself apart from his predecessors by invoking the executive emergency powers as a means to bypass legislative prerogative rather than to expedite a generally agreed upon course of action. On the heels of this, it appears that Trump may be planning a similar maneuver to sidestep Congress in the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia, despite clear objections from lawmakers.

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) claimed that Trump may be planning to declare an “emergency” in order to sell American-made bombs to Saudi Arabia by using an obscure statutory loophole.

Murphy said that the Trump Administration may be planning to circumvent Congress and provide the Saudis new American-made bombs by exploiting a loophole in the Arms Export Control Act (AECA).

In a Twitter thread, Murphy claimed he’s heard reports that the administration is planning to cut Congress out of the process by declaring that the sale of bombs to the Saudis constitutes an emergency. Taking this step would allow Trump to enact the sale with Saudi Arabia without Congress even getting the chance to review the sale, which is required under normal circumstances.

Murphy speculated that Trump may say the sale of arms is an emergency because of increased tensions with Iran, but warned that allowing that “would allow any president to claim any number of Middle East crises as an ’emergency’ and then Congress will never be able to object to an arms sale again.”

Murphy called for bipartisan support in preventing the president from another controversial emergency declaration, calling on his colleagues to “stand up right now and the the president not to set this dangerous precedent.”

Murphy is an outspoken critic of Saudi Arabia’s military intervention in Yemen, which has quickly devolved into one of the worst humanitarian crises in the world (with some estimating that up to 130 children are dying daily). Opposition to Saudi Arabia’s actions reached an acme following the state-sponsored murder of American resident and Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

Just last month, in an unprecedented measure, both chambers of Congress passed a war powers resolution demanding an end to the United States’ continued support of the Saudi armed forces in Yemen. Although Trump went on to veto the measure, the resolution signaled Congress’s dwindling support for Saudi interests.

Following Trump’s veto, Murphy announced that the Senate would be stopping all pending arms sales to Saudi Arabia, stating that “If there’s any weapons sale to Saudi Arabia to help them perpetuate the war inside Yemen, there’s going to be a vote to reject it on the Senate floor.”

The trial of Honolulu police chief Louis Kealoha and his attorney wife Katherine Kealoha began on Wednesday. The allegations against them range from theft of money from a trust that Katherine Kealoha was put in charge of by the state to framing family members for a crime they did not commit to shut them up about the fraud the couple was allegedly perpetrating.

These are four of the wildest allegations brought forth by prosecutors in a case dubbed the “biggest corruption case in Hawaii history.”

Mailbox Set-Up

Prosecutors alleged that Katherine Kealoha’s grandmother and uncle told her that they were going to report Kealoha’s fraud. Kealoha’s alleged response was to have her grandmother Florence Puana, 99, declared incapacitated and to frame her uncle, Gerard Puana, for stealing the Kealohas’ mailbox. After that, Puana told his public defender, Alexander Silvert, that his niece was setting him up. At first, it seemed too outlandish that this powerful couple would set up his client, but the scheme began to unravel after the accused allegedly lied about the value of the mailbox: they said the mailbox was worth $380, when it only cost $180. This difference made the offense a felony instead of a misdemeanor.

“When I realized they were lying about the make and model of the mailbox, then I was ‘OK, there’s something going on,'” Silvert said.

Puana’s case eventually lead to a mistrial in 2014. The aforementioned Puanas brought a civil suit against Katherine Kealoha, but a jury sided with Kealoha in 2015.

Theft of Children’s Trust Fund

Katherine Kealoha, an attorney, was put in charge by the state of Hawaii of a trust fund for two children. The indictment alleged that Kealoha periodically stole tens of thousands of dollars from the trust to pay off a personal loan, overdraft charges and mortgage payments. The indictment stated that Kealoha deposited “over $167,000 to be held in trust for their benefit. Pursuant to a state court order, all disbursements and transactions associated with these trust accounts were to be approved by both K. KEALOHA and her cocounsel in the state court guardianship case (‘Attorney I’).”

Bank Fraud

The couple allegedly lied on bank applications about rental income they did not have in order to get a second mortgage on their home:

It was part of the scheme that L. KEALOHA and K. KEALOHA would apply to HCFCU for a second mortgage on their then personal residence in the amount of $150,000, and falsely certify that the information provided in support of their application was true and correct … On or about July 24, 2012, within the District of Hawaii, K. KEALOHA and L. KEALOHA knowingly executed the scheme by falsely certifying in a Form 1003 loan application that they received over $2,700 per month in rental income, when in fact no such lease agreement existed and the defendants did not receive such rent or lease payments.

It was further part of the scheme that in or about June 2010, K. KEALOHA altered monthly statements for one of the Trust Accounts to make it appear that she owned the accounts, and forwarded those altered documents to HUSAFCU to support the loan application … on or about July 6, 2010, using the alias Alison Lee Wong, K. KEALOHA sent a fabricated email to herself at a different email address, and forwarded that email to her mortgage broker, in order to make it appear that derogatory credit associated with K. KEALOHA was erroneous, and that KEALOHA’s assistant, “Alison Lee Wong,” was attempting to correct such errors.

Obstruction of Justice

Katherine Kealoha is also charged with trying to “obstruct, influence, and impede an official proceeding.” A grand jury was investigating whether she had misappropriated the funds for the trust account of the two children. Kealoha allegedly “caused” the children “to testify falsely before the Federal grand jury concerning the Trust Accounts” and “sent an email attaching false and misleading documents” for the children to submit to the grand jury.

Louis and Katherine Kealoha proclaimed their innocence during an interview with KHON2 News.

“It is extremely frustrating that these issues are continue to be brought up over and over again when we’ve basically laid them to rest,” Katherine Kealoha said.

“I dedicated my life to public service. I have 33 years in the police department, six and a half as the police chief,” Louis Kealoha would add. “There is nothing that I would do to violate the symbol of the badge, which is public trust.”

]]>https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/the-4-craziest-details-in-corruption-case-dubbed-biggest-in-hawaii-history/feed/0Things Got Awkward When Defense Told Woman to Look at Former NFL Player Who Allegedly Raped Herhttps://lawandcrime.com/live-trials/live-trials-current/kellen-winslow-ii/things-got-awkward-when-defense-told-woman-to-look-at-former-nfl-player-who-allegedly-raped-her/
https://lawandcrime.com/live-trials/live-trials-current/kellen-winslow-ii/things-got-awkward-when-defense-told-woman-to-look-at-former-nfl-player-who-allegedly-raped-her/#respondWed, 22 May 2019 20:29:25 +0000https://lawandcrime.com/?p=143590

Things got pretty awkward Wednesday when an attorney for former NFL player Kellen Winslow II told one of the alleged victims to look at her alleged rapist.

#KellenWinslow – Jane Doe #2 now under cross-examination. She tells Winslow’s defense attorney she doesn’t appreciate having to look at her rapist. “I think he should be further over.” Defense atty Carlos, “Take a look at him.” Objection. pic.twitter.com/APn1zy7g9I

Winslow is accused of raping three women and of allegedly performing lewd acts in front of two others. Jane Doe 2, 59, took the stand Wednesday. She said she knew the defendant as “Kevin,” that they’d been acquainted for months, and that he had been kind until he raped her on May 13 of last year. She claimed that he’d pulled up in his Hummer and took her on what was supposed to be a trip for some coffee. (Doe 2 said she had been homeless.)

She claimed that Winslow had previously offered her $50 for sex, but she rejected him.

Doe 2 was very soft-spoken and apparently anxious during her testimony, even during direct examination with a friendly prosecutor. The judge directed her several times to keep her voice up and to let the state finish answering questions before answering. At one point, the judge even asked if she was okay or wanted to take a break.

Attorney and Law&Crime Network trial analyst Julie Rendelman suggested before cross-examination that the defense had to be cautious with Doe 2.

Jane Doe #2….comes off as very soft-spoken and nervous on the stand with some memory issues…the defense is going to have to tread very carefully during cross examination if they are going to be effective. #KellenWinslowhttps://t.co/tVeLjbjIeC

The defense is trying to show that the alleged rapes were consensual infidelity. It was “sex,” the defense said. Accordingly, Winslow’s attorneys are trying to undermine the credibility of all five of the alleged victims.

Criminal defense attorney and Law&Crime host Bob Bianchi discussed the case with defense lawyer Gene Rossi. They disagreed as to the effectiveness of Doe 2’s testimony. Bianchi, a former prosecutor out of New Jersey, said it wasn’t doing it for him. Rossi, a former federal prosecutor, said she was overall solid. He described her as vulnerable, and with a good demeanor, though she went on tangents. Jane Doe 1, he said, was the opposite.

This alleged victim — a woman in her 50s — testified Tuesday. She had been described as a transient. She said Winslow raped her and threatened to kill her. During cross-examination, the defense attempted to impugn her memory. She is the same woman who mistook defense lawyer Brian Watkins for the defendant in a preliminary hearing. You can see the attorney in the gif below. He is clean-shaven. Winslow had glasses, but lacked his beard in the preliminary hearing.

#KellenWinslow – Under cross-examination Jane Doe #1 defending her misidentification of the lawyer instead of Winslow she said Winslow’s hair is different than at preliminary hearing. Winslow shakes his head. pic.twitter.com/dauPeKoGUo

#KellenWinslow – Defense attorney now bringing up each incident the judge ruled they could. She doesn’t recall 3 of the 5 arrests the defense brought up. “Is there a chance you blacked it out?” pic.twitter.com/ptsa5gum76

Neither Doe 1 or 2 identified Winslow’s black Hummer as the one they saw their alleged attacker driving .

[Screen grab via Law&Crime Network]

]]>https://lawandcrime.com/live-trials/live-trials-current/kellen-winslow-ii/things-got-awkward-when-defense-told-woman-to-look-at-former-nfl-player-who-allegedly-raped-her/feed/0Win a Copy of Dan Abrams’ New Book with David Fisher, ‘Theodore Roosevelt for the Defense’!https://lawandcrime.com/sponsored/win-a-copy-of-dan-abrams-new-book-with-david-fisher-theodore-roosevelt-for-the-defense/
https://lawandcrime.com/sponsored/win-a-copy-of-dan-abrams-new-book-with-david-fisher-theodore-roosevelt-for-the-defense/#respondWed, 22 May 2019 20:07:56 +0000https://lawandcrime.com/?p=142073

We’re pleased to announce that we’re giving away five signed copies of Dan Abrams‘s new book with David Fisher, Theodore Roosevelt for the Defense: The Courtroom Battle to Save His Legacy. You enter below by signing up for our newsletter. Through May 31st, you’ll be able to sign up for a chance to win a free copy. Winners will receive their book through the mail. There are two easy ways to enter. First, you can register below for our weekly newsletter. If you’re already a newsletter recipient, you may instead email giveaways@lawandcrime.com with the subject line “Sweepstakes – Theodore Roosevelt giveaway.”

Please see our Sweepstakes Official Rules as part of our User Agreement for more details.

Enter here for a chance to win!

* indicates required

Email Address *

First Name

Last Name

Abrams and Fisher take you back to one of the biggest trials of the 20th century. Republican party leader William Barnes sued former president Theodore Roosevelt for accusing him of political corruption. It was 1915. The United States was linked to armed conflict all over the world. There was a tense political climate. At the center of it all you had a former POTUS known for butting heads with the media. Turns out that very little has changed in over 100 years.

For both men, this was a fight over reputation and their future. Barnes wanted to clear his name from a corruption allegation. After all, he planned on running for the U.S. Senate. As for Roosevelt, his friend-turned-rival sued him enough to ruin him financially. If he lost, it might have been the disgraceful end to a decades-long career that took him from his home state of New York to Cuba and the White House. Newspapers nationwide had their eyes on the court when Roosevelt took the stand in his defense for over a week.

]]>https://lawandcrime.com/sponsored/win-a-copy-of-dan-abrams-new-book-with-david-fisher-theodore-roosevelt-for-the-defense/feed/0Daily Debrief May 22nd, 2019https://lawandcrime.com/podcasts/daily-debrief-may-22nd-2019/
https://lawandcrime.com/podcasts/daily-debrief-may-22nd-2019/#respondWed, 22 May 2019 20:05:15 +0000https://lawandcrime.com/?p=143637In California, a former NFL player is accused of sex crimes against five women. The first accusers take the stand, but are they credible?

Also, a verdict in the case of a man who drove the wrong way down the highway and killed five teens. Did the insanity defense work?

Plus, in South Carolina, a man who killed his five kids couldn’t help but confess to pretty much everyone! Now, he’s claiming insanity.